I was talking about the motive for altruism rather than the outcome, it is the action that is rewarding regardless of whether when the karma comes around it is in the form of getting something back from that specific person or community
I am not unhappy about being 'not very realistic and slightly pompous', it's quite accurate anyway why isn't it realistic? examples?
what you mean, admit that it's motivated by self-interest?

no, that the action of altruisim is a single act that from a person that may on its own not have affect the person its for in the best way possible.
what works for one person and what a person gives may not work for anothers circumstances.
there are of course ways of changing that and passing the altruisim on in a better way i think.
collective altruisim based on different strengths and experience etc.

Contrary to what we may think, individualism doesn't connect very well with capitalism. Think about it, when you become part of a capitalist society -and right now I don't think there's anywhere in the world where you can get out of it- your role will be to assume your function as one more piece in the puzzle. For example, a company expects each of their employees not to behave as individual entitites but to achieve according to the company's expectations. But even if we forget about capitalism, we can easily see how every theory of society is based around the common aim of working as a community to achieve the society's objectives. What is the role of individualism, then? and, most strikingly, is there individualism at all? It could seem that, if there is no way to escape the social, political, economic and cultural processes informing the reality where we live, there could be no ground on which to build a totally personal concept of the world. Well, as I see it, a degree of individuality is also essential, and we can see this individuality, for instance, in the indivual efforts of artists to subvert views commonly held as natural. Such transgressions tend to be 'led' by individuals rather than communities. Or maybe it is that we need the mythological figure of the leader whose example we can follow -as a society. Individualism and societies are, therefore, two sides of the same coins, the latter needs the former to change its shape, which does continually.

isn't the basis of marx's thought that the forces of production in industrial capitalism are in fact communal and are held back by the individualist, profit-skimming relations of production? just sayin.

Yes it was Marx, actually I believe that the problem with Marx theories was that he wasn't (or did not want to be) aware of his own personal contribution to a change in social, cultural and political structures. More recently, cultural materialism, a branch of Marxism, studies subversive strategies carried out by individuals such as Shakespeare in their works of art.

When I was younger I was interested in how I was different to others. Then I became interested in what I have in common with others.

Because once I understood that everyone is different, I no longer felt the need to be an individual.

Its the beginning of the end of otherness?

Not really because there a still many parts of society where there is a pressure to conform. For example, school, and anywhere else that has a school-ish atmosphere eg. erm.. Parliament, Golf Clubs, Night Clubs etc - and where it is de rigeur to act and dress like others, share the same opinions. Is this always a good thing?

Sure we all have two arms, eyes legs etc but there are essential differences and distances between people (islands in the stream) and this should be respected.

Sure Capitalism says that it values individuality (is this really reflected in board-rooms?) but I think it is a fallacy and a gross over-simplification to think or imply that if we get rid of individuality then Capitalism will wither...